Standing Committee F

[Mr. Derek Conway in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 46 - Functions of Chief Inspector

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 290, in page 26, line 15, after 'inspections', insert
'of the efficiency and effectiveness'.
 This addition would make it clear that the role of the chief inspector of criminal justice was to inspect the various criminal justice agencies to ensure that they carried out their functions efficiently and effectively. As it stands, the Bill is somewhat vague about the inspector's role and about the inspections that he should carry out. The amendment would establish parameters within which he could carry out his functions, and similar parameters define the role of other inspectorates. For example, section 41(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 empowers Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to inspect and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The amendment would tidy the clause up and give it more focus.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for moving what I believe is intended to be a helpful amendment. However, although the sentiments behind it are entirely consistent with the review, it could have unfortunate unintended consequences.
 One of the chief inspector's responsibilities is to inspect the Prison Service, but prescribing his role in the way set out in the amendment would prevent him from reporting on the condition and treatment of prisoners and children who were detained in juvenile justice centres or secure accommodation. That is just one example, but I am concerned that the range of bodies to be inspected is such that there may be others. 
 We must ensure that we do not inadvertently preclude the chief inspector from properly carrying out his functions in relation to all the bodies on the list. I would, therefore, be grateful if my hon. Friend would withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am sorry to interrupt the Committee's proceedings, but when we last met there was an unfortunate exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—you were not in the Chair, although I know that you follow proceedings with
 almost legendary diligence. The Minister made allegations about what my hon. Friend had said, and the wiser members of the Committee agreed that my hon. Friend should withdraw his remarks if the record bore out those allegations and that the Minister should do likewise if it did not. I was waiting for the Minister to speak, in the hope that he would withdraw his allegations.
 The Minister also made remarks about the possible accuracy of the record: 
 ''I will of course read the record. However, I heard what I heard, and words on the page do not always bear the implications that they clearly bore''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 5 February 2002; c. 227.] 
That rather casts doubt on the writers of the Official Report, which is unfortunate and something which I think the Minister will regret. 
 I know that the Minister is a reasonable and fair man, and that a reasonable and fair spirit has allowed the Committee to be productive. He has now had a chance to read the record, and, with your indulgence Mr. Conway, I simply wanted to give him the opportunity to put matters straight so that we could return to the equanimity and happy state that we previously enjoyed and which I hope that we shall enjoy again.

Derek Conway: I read the Hansard of the sittings that I do not chair, to make sure that my co-chairmen and I are at least ploughing the same furrow—an unusual thought. The Committee seemed to be getting interestingly frisky towards the end of the last sitting. As far as I can see, the difficulty occurred in columns 226 and 227, with the word ''pejorative''. However, I took the precaution of going to the Library to check the Oxford English Dictionary, and I found that the word was not unparliamentary. It is not a word that the Minister could be required to withdraw. It may be considered hurtful, but it is not considered unparliamentary.
 With regard to the Minister's observations on the Official Report, I am not sure that it was his intention to question it. That is not how I interpreted them, but if I misunderstood, I am sure that the Minister will put me right. I consider that I have no cause to require the Minister to withdraw anything he said. He may wish to add some remarks on a point of order, which I would take, but I have no grounds for requiring him to withdraw any remarks he made in columns 226 and 227.

John Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. I will not detain the Committee for very long. I accept entirely what you said about the Minister not needing to withdraw remarks in the parliamentary sense. However, given the way that the Minister has conducted himself in the Committee thus far, and the positive and constructive atmosphere that has prevailed, I felt it was appropriate at this juncture to smooth things over. I hope that it is possible, without resort to the formal procedure of withdrawing remarks, to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that his honour and integrity have not been brought into question by the Minister.

Des Browne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. If I say a few words we may be able to move on from the matter in the spirit described by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I accept and recognise his description of the way that the Committee has conducted its affairs up to now. There is no question that the temperature of discussion was raised in the context referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
 I have read the words that were said. You were correct to point out, Mr. Conway, that there was no suggestion that the Official Report would not properly record what had been said. Having read the words, and without requiring anybody to get into interpretations, definitions or descriptions, I am happy to put on the record that I accept that the hon. Member for Reigate did not intend that the words he used should have the meaning that I ascribed to them. 
 At that time, I considered the hon. Gentleman's words, in the wider context of what was going on in Northern Ireland, to be particularly unfortunate and capable of being so interpreted. However, I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman did not intend that. If these words restore the honour of the hon. Member for Reigate to the extent that it may have been taken away by something that I said, I hope that we can leave the record as it is without withdrawing anybody's remarks.

Derek Conway: I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for clarifying that matter. Committees do, from time to time, become excitable, and that is perfectly understandable. However, the consideration of the Bill has in general been reasoned, so let us hope that we can proceed on that basis.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. To bring the matter to a conclusion, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I will go on accepting entirely what he says, and I hope that he will continue to accord me the same privilege.

Derek Conway: We can now return to the Minister's contribution.

Des Browne: I had only one sentence left to deliver, but it may turn into two or three now. I was requesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh withdraw his amendment. However, I was also offering him the opportunity to continue his debate with me, either in the Committee or outside it, between now and the remaining stages of the Bill's passage. I would like to find out whether he can persuade me that what I fear would be the unintended consequences of his amendment would not, in reality, occur.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for his contribution. If he would suggest what some of the unfortunate consequences might be, it would help me to decide whether to pursue the matter.

Des Browne: I am anxious to curtail the debate, which is on comparatively narrow matters, but I will make a further contribution. In my short remarks, I
 suggested that the amendment would prescribe the inspector's role. I gave the example of the reporting of conditions and treatment of prisoners or children detained in juvenile justice centres or secure accommodation following an inspection by the Prison Service. I also suggested that there might be other examples due to the extensive nature and diversity of the bodies, but that that example was sufficient for me because it involved children. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister. I know of his interest in the Bill's dealings with young people, and that his concern is genuine. I am not convinced that the words ''efficiency and effectiveness'' would have detrimental consequences, but I want to have further discussions with the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Patsy Calton: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 26, line 31, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may choose not to'.

Derek Conway: With this we may discuss amendment No. 289, in page 26, line 31, leave out 'must' and insert 'need'.

Patsy Calton: I was interested in the previous amendment, and was concerned that it might reduce the abilities and powers of the chief inspector. Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 are intended to probe the Minister on the powers of the inspector. We want to find out exactly how the Government envisage his role, as there seems to be some confusion as to how he should carry out his duties.
 The inspector's function should be either to consider strategically all the organisations listed in subsection (1)—to do so properly, he would need the ability to investigate them all as he saw fit—or, as is suggested under amendment No. 158, to investigate only those matters that have been brought to his attention. Such matters are likely to come from individual cases, so he would need to be able to investigate such cases. The two amendments stand together. 
 The chief inspector's hands seem to be tied. As a matter of course, he cannot investigate all organisations listed in subsection (1) as he sees fit, and he cannot investigate in individual cases.

Derek Conway: The hon. Lady referred to amendment No. 158, in clause 47, page 27, line 28, leave out subsection (a), and I will happily add that amendment to the group for ease of debate. I trust that the Committee is content with that.

Seamus Mallon: I fully support the amendment. Amendment No. 289, which I tabled, attempts to achieve the same purpose. Amendment No. 157 is probably better, and I support it because although it is essential that the role of chief inspector be defined, he must at least have the opportunity to examine issues and should not be tied by the absolute term ''must.'' The wording of the amendment ensures that. It should be considered in conjunction with amendment No.
 158, which in many ways is consequential on it. I recognise the good reasons for the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I support it.

Des Browne: In amendments Nos. 157 and 289, hon. Members seem to want to give the inspector the discretion to inspect an organisation even if the inspector is satisfied that it is adequately inspected already. In the Government's view, the criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland should not be overburdened with unnecessary bureaucracy. Nothing more should be imposed on an organisation that is being inspected already. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment No. 158 would remove subsection (a) of clause 47, which would remove the bar on inspecting individual cases. In our opinion, the review did not intend to confer on the inspectorate the power to inspect and review individual cases. That would profoundly change the nature of the organisation.

Patsy Calton: Removing the ability to investigate individual organisations might mean that an inspector could not investigate in the round, as he may want to. Without that ability, he might not be able to access information or make clear information that would be germane to any case that he made in the round.

Des Browne: I accept the hon. Lady's point that the inspector may not be able to inspect regimes, such as that involved in the detention of children, without considering the circumstances of individual cases. However, in my view, the Bill does not preclude the inspector from considering actual cases—I use that phrase advisedly—as opposed as individual cases. He can consider actual cases, which may be sampled at random, to examine the operation of a system in practice. Giving him the power to inspect individual cases would have profound implications for, and profoundly change the nature of, the institution that we want to construct.
 The review framed its recommendations on the inspectorate so as to ensure good systems and cost-effectiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh emphasised in the discussion on an earlier amendment. There is a clear distinction between this type of inspection and a complaints authority's or ombudsman's function. That distinction is widely recognised and practised by other inspectorates. For example, separate bodies in England and Wales deal with the inspections of the police and complaints against them in individual cases. That regime will exist in Northern Ireland, too. 
 I am sure that the hon. Member for Cheadle did not intend some of the more far-reaching consequences of the amendment. If she were suggesting, for example, that the inspectorate should be able to review controversial prosecutions as individual cases, that would make for a different debate. However, I suspect that she is not suggesting that, and that those who support her amendment are not either. That would contradict the review's recommendations on an 
 independent prosecution service, for example. The inspector already has a challenging role to ensure appropriate standards within the system and that the system works effectively, so that organisations provide best value. It would not be helpful to expand the role of the inspector into this area, which in any event is not his business, so I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I strongly support the Minister in resisting all the amendments. The first amendment tabled by the hon. Lady would result in a lack of clarity in the inspection regime, and the possibility of being liable to inspection by two organisations should be resisted. If it is clear to the inspector that an inspection has been adequately carried out by another organisation, his duty should be as in the Bill, which requires that he ''must not carry out'' a further inspection. That position will be clear to organisations that are being inspected. An inspection is a testing time for any organisation, and its exposure should be minimised to that which is necessary.
 Amendment No. 158, which would allow inspections into individual cases, could be thoroughly pernicious, particularly in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The inspectorate should restrict its role to that of general inspections. Allowing individual inspections would lead the inspectorate into areas which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was attempting to resist in his previous amendment by making it clear that inspections should be for the sake of ''efficiency and effectiveness''. Sometimes individual cases should be reviewed, and it may be appropriate for people to appeal if they think that they have been on the receiving end of injustice. It should not be for the chief inspector of criminal justice to act as the board of appeal in such cases, which is what the hon. Lady's amendment would lead to, although I am sure that that is not her intention. It should be clear to individuals what their line of appeal should be, and that should not be to the chief inspector.

Seamus Mallon: There was no intention on my part to create a situation in which the chief inspector could surf through the areas suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate. However, an urgent issue of public concern could arise in which the inspector might consider that an inspection was justified, even though the agency had already been inspected by another inspectorate. If the inspector cannot make such a judgment, he will be in a weak and difficult position.

Des Browne: That is why ''adequate'' appears in clause 46(2).

Seamus Mallon: I take the Minister's point. However, I do not believe that changing the wording from ''must'' to ''need'' would have the detrimental effect that is envisaged. It makes good sense.

Patsy Calton: I shall deal with the last point first. It could be argued that the phrase ''must not carry out inspections'' may lead to a situation in which the chief inspector may not consider a matter that gives him cause for concern. In such circumstances, some of the sense of these amendments is needed. I accept the
 Minister's assertion that it is not the intention—it is not our intention, either—to insist that the chief inspector should re-examine individual cases that have been adequately inspected. However, the inspector might have cause for concern, and subsection (2) might be used to argue that he has no jurisdiction because adequate arrangements are already in place. Arrangements may be adequate in the round, but may not be adequate in relation to an individual case on which the inspector's hands will be tied.
 The Minister's distinction between actual and individual cases left me somewhat confused. I dare say that it has some legal meaning, but it escapes me, and I should be grateful for some further explanation. If I understood the distinction, I might agree with the Minister.

Des Browne: If it is of any help to the Committee, the distinction was between anonymised cases--which may be helpful to the inspector in working through a regime--and individual cases that refer to a particular personality, which we are trying to avoid.

Patsy Calton: I am happy to accept that explanation, but I still believe that either one of the amendments to subsection (2)—amendment No. 157 or amendment No. 289—should be accepted to give the chief inspector some flexibility to reconsider cases if he deems it appropriate.

Derek Conway: Order. So that I can be clear about the hon. Lady's intentions, does she seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 157 or to divide the Committee? If she seeks to withdraw the amendment, we can still proceed to a Division on amendments Nos. 289 and 158, if that is the wish of other hon. Members.

Patsy Calton: I think that we should go ahead with amendment No. 157.
 Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 17.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
 '(6A)No order shall be made under subsection (6) above unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice.'
 It is nice to be able to welcome you back to the Chair this morning, Mr. Conway. 
 The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to consult the chief inspector of criminal justice before making an order that added, subtracted or otherwise altered the list of organisations set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d). I consider it appropriate that the Secretary of State should have the confidence and support of the chief inspector when he makes such changes. In that context, I draw the Committee's attention to clause 47(7), which states: 
''The Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to provide advice in relation to an organisation specified in section 46. 
If the Minister can confirm that the word ''advice'' includes consultation with the Secretary of State when he wants to alter, add or omit an organisation from the list in clause 46(1), I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Des Browne: The hon. Lady's amendment is again intended to be helpful. The Government would expect the consultation that she seeks to enshrine in statute to take place in any event. I cannot imagine the relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief inspector being such that consultation would not take place during their normal communications if the Secretary of State proposed to deploy the powers given him under subsection (6).
 I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion, but it is not necessary. My understanding of the word ''advice'' in clause 47 is that it is not intended to be used for the purpose that she suggests. I would be misleading her if I said that it was a catch-all provision. It would not properly include such consultation. The Government anticipate that the Secretary of State will consult the chief inspector. Who better could he go to for advice on whether or not an organisation should be included in the list of those to be inspected? With respect, it is not necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. With that reassurance, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that explanation. May I tease out a little more information? What is meant by the word ''advice'' in clause 47(7)? Does it include consultation in relation to those organisations listed in clause 46?

Des Browne: This provision is included because it is envisaged that, over time, the chief inspector will become the repository of a significant amount of information and knowledge about the organisations that he or she inspects. It seems sensible that the Executive officer—in this case, the Secretary of State—should require such a repository of information to give him advice on a range of matters.

Lady Hermon: I am perfectly happy with that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I want to make a brief inquiry, to assist me and other members of the Committee. My question could be asked under any of the clauses setting up the chief inspectorate of criminal justice. When the new institutions are set up, it may be necessary--this may have been overlooked--for them to be listed under schedules 2 or 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as reserved or excepted matters. Is clarification required in the Bill with regard to the chief inspectorate? Judicial appointments are excepted matters and the criminal law is a reserved matter, but the chief inspectorate sits between the two.

Des Browne: I think the answer is that the chief inspector falls within provisions covering criminal justice in schedule 3. If the hon. Gentleman is content with that explanation concerning the chief inspectorate, perhaps we could revisit the matter in relation to other institutions as we proceed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Further provisions about functions

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in page 27, line 13, at end insert—
 '(1A) The Chief Inspector must carry out an inspection of each organisation specified in subsection 46(1) at least once in every year, unless he is satisfied that the organisation is subject to adequate inspection by someone other than him.'.
 This amendment is straightforward and would ensure that criminal justice agencies are subject to annual review and inspection, and provide the chief inspector with statutory direction in drawing up his programme. It would also allow him to exclude an organisation from his annual programme if he is satisfied that it has been adequately inspected by another inspectorate. In the interests of symmetry, I note that the annual inspection of the Police Service is specified under section 41(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1988.

Andrew Turner: Prima facie, the amendment would not only provide belt and braces, but would ensure that the trousers cannot fall down. It is excessive and would require a level of inspection that is too detailed. To take an example from this side of the water, inspection of a single school of moderate size probably requires the chief inspector of schools to appoint a team of 10 to 12 inspectors, who spend four, five or more days in the school after substantial preparation by all the staff of the school, hold a lengthy debriefing, followed by a report, which has to be discussed with the school governors. The chief
 inspector is moving away from a quadrennial inspection of schools because the burden of inspection on each school is too great. He is moving to a system of more inspections for those schools that need them most and fewer for those that need them least.
 The hon. Gentleman proposes a system of inspection for each of the categories, except those inspected elsewhere—the Minister might indicate which those are. That will incur an immense cost, and cause immense disruption to the professional services specified in clause 46 (1)(a) to (j). The level of inspection is too demanding. Inspection is important, but it is not in the interest of those running the service, or their customers, to have that level of disruption imposed on them in their everyday work.

Lembit Öpik: I have a question for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My main concern is the creeping influence of blame culture. There is an advantage to codifying the work of the inspector. However, precedent and etiquette will establish that, and the amendment may be over-prescriptive. Taking into account the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), how does the hon. Gentleman respond to the concerns that the amendment would tie up the inspectors' resources in investigations that will probably turn up nothing, and that it assumes that organisations must be inspected to maintain probity? We should not send that sort of signal to those organisations or the public.

Gregory Campbell: I am perturbed that the investigations under clause 46(1)(a) to (j) are to be carried out on an annual basis. The police, the police reserve, the forensic science department, the state pathologists department, the Public Prosecution Service, the probation board, the Prison Service, the juvenile justice board, four health and social service boards, a multiplicity of health trusts and a compensation agency would all be inspected. I partly agree with the analogy of belt and braces that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight used, but the clause seems to provide belt, braces, staples, nails and anything else one could throw at it. I find the amendment superfluous.

Des Browne: I am grateful for the support for my resistance to the amendment. I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, and I am not inviting him to intervene, that I did not understand his allusion to trousers, but perhaps he will explain it to me later. I may be developing a habit of misinterpreting contributions from the Opposition.
 As the title of part 3 suggests, the institution is new. The level of scrutiny necessary for any organisation on the list, which may be expanded, will depend on the organisation. It may be appropriate for one organisation at a particular stage of development to have annual inspections, but inappropriate for another. Clause 47 will grant flexibility to the chief inspector, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to produce a programme of inspection that reflects the level of involvement that an inspector must have with any specified organisation. The clause provides for the approval of the programme of inspection through 
 consultation with the Secretary of State, and for the possibility, to which I have already alluded, that the list from the review of the organisations that need to be inspected is not exhaustive. For example, the powers that are exercised by Consignia, to which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred, have a potential impact on the criminal justice system. The period between inspections will be determined by experience, consultation and the body of knowledge that will be built up in the inspectorate. 
 At this stage, it would not be helpful to require all such organisations to be inspected annually. That would be a disproportionate level of inspection for some, if not all, and would generate an unrealistic programme of work for the body. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Seamus Mallon: Ironically, I agree with the view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. In many cases, requirements for inspections are taken to absurdity and there is a counter effect because some organisations, such as schools, spend more time preparing for inspections than doing what they should do, which is help young people to acquire knowledge.
 That is not the objective of the amendment—far from it. It is to try to ensure that there is an adequacy of inspectorates other than the chief inspector. I am not sure that in all instances that is the case; we can be reasonably sure that it is not. One example touches on what was discussed yesterday, and I will not go back over it in detail. Some appointments to important areas are not subject to any form of scrutiny: for example, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the ombudsman, who are appointed by the Queen. Unless the position has changed recently—if it has, I shall be delighted to hear about it from the Minister—the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland is not subject to scrutiny by a Minister, Parliament or anybody. That is not satisfactory. You may ask what that has to do with the amendment, Mr. Conway.

Derek Conway: Order. I was just about to do that.

Seamus Mallon: I use the amendment to make a point. I am not totally satisfied that, until a problem is obvious, scrutiny or investigation—I do not like using those words—exist for many of the specified areas. A problem that is not dealt with in an ongoing fashion becomes an issue. If the amendment is formalised in legislation, it may have the effect of encouraging other means of inspections to take place more often and more effectively. Had it applied to some in the past, and had there been the possibility of pressure from the chief inspector asking, ''Have you done it and, if you haven't, when and how well will you do it?''—perhaps previous years' inspections had not been good—some problems may not have arisen. I am talking not about security problems, but about problems in other areas. I take the logic of the point, and in essence I agree with it.

Lembit Öpik: The amendment helps us to establish an important principle. We are saying that the inspectorate must be proactive when there is a case for inspection, rather than inspecting organisations on an automatic, cyclical basis. I believe that I am right in thinking that a light-touch inspectorate would be brought in when it is suspected that there is something to be looked into.

Seamus Mallon: I take that point.
 Another valid argument that has not been made is that an inspectorate cannot deal with some things on a yearly basis, because it may take two or three years to reach a pattern of conclusions. I shall not pursue the amendment, but it was right to move it because it raises important points, not least the one that arose yesterday about the chief electoral officer. There are anomalies throughout the system for which the amendment would not cater and the Bill does not cater. When a chief inspector is appointed, I hope that it will not be a titular position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in page 27, line 18, after 'State', insert
'or the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly'.
 The amendment does not indicate a rush of blood to my head, but it provides a constructive illustration of where it would be appropriate for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to act jointly. However, if I understood the Minister correctly on Tuesday, there is a distinction between the pre-devolution position and the post-devolution position, and the amendment is therefore inappropriate.

Des Browne: On devolution of the criminal justice system, we would transfer those functions by a transfer of functions order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The distinction that the hon. Lady has made is entirely correct.

Lady Hermon: With that clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Powers of inspectors

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 191 page 27, line 42, at end insert—
'(ba) any person to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where any such document is to be found, or'.
 I enjoy the exercise because I do not get it in any other shape or form, Mr. Conway. 
 The chief inspector of criminal justice should be able to require three things during an inspection: first, that documents be produced, which is covered in subsection (2)(a); secondly, that such documents be explained, which is covered in subsection (2)(b); and, thirdly, that a person be required to state where documents are to be found, subject to
''the best of his knowledge and belief'', 
so that the bland wording of subsection (2)(c) is clarified. The three steps for the documents produced are identification, explanation and information as to where they are to be found, to the best of a person's knowledge or belief. Thus there are three steps and three requirements. 
 I took a useful example from the Competition Act 1998, in which inspectors who seek to detect breaches of European Union competition rules have those three clear requirements when carrying out an inspection. A chief inspector of criminal justice should have powers equal to those of an inspector who seeks to find out whether competition rules have been breached.

Des Browne: Perhaps I should have anticipated that I would need to consider the Competition Act 1998 to prepare myself for the debate, but unfortunately I did not. Perhaps, since the 1998 Act was drafted—

Crispin Blunt: Passed.

Des Browne: No. Since the 1998 Act was drafted, those who draft legislation —they provide an excellent service—might have taken the view that what the hon. Lady referred to as a ''bland provision'' is broad enough to cover the exact circumstances that she expects. I do not know whether that is the case, but I can speculate.
 We could argue about the interpretation of the clause and what the words ''such document'' in the amendment refer to. By using that expression, the amendment could be seen as referring to the word ''document'' in subsection (2)(b). Those would be pedantic arguments, as the hon. Lady has made the reason behind the amendment clear. 
 My response to the mischief that the hon. Lady seeks to tackle is that the phrase 
''that other information be provided'' 
covers the eventuality to which she refers and others. If it is appropriate for an inspector to know where such a document may be found, that is merely ''other information'' that they may require, and they have the power to ask for it in the broad terms of the clause.

Andrew Turner: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for North Down, but it seems to me that the amendment would be appropriate in circumstances such as those that we have heard about in the recent Victoria Climbie inquiry. In that case, the local authority might have done its best to produce documents, but was not able to do so until they happened to turn up in a filing cabinet.
 The amendment is useful, because it entitles the inspector to ask ''any person''. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I guess that the powers of the inspector in the rest of this part of the Bill relate to the authority rather than to any person within or outside it. If an individual had left the employment of the authority, the amendment would permit that person to be asked. The other provisions of this part of the Bill suggest that the power is in relation to the authority rather than to a person who might have left the authority.

Derek Conway: Order. While the Minister reflects on that, may I say that although the hon. Gentleman was making a perfectly valid observation, it would have been better made as a proper contribution to the debate. Interventions should be specific; I will call hon. Members to make their contributions in the fullness of time.

Des Browne: Without wishing to contravene your instructions, Mr. Conway, subsection (1) provides that the powers relate to ''any premises''. I can see no such restriction elsewhere in the clause, but we may come back to the question on clause stand part.
 I am seeking to address the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Down. I have exhausted the arguments that I marshalled in anticipation of this debate, although I may find some hidden away in the Competition Act. I hope that she is persuaded by the arguments that I have put before her thus far.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister exhausted his arguments fairly abruptly in response to the hon. Member for North Down. If I may, I shall stretch them further, although I do not intend to repeat myself when we debate the other amendments to the clause. Indeed, I think that the amendments should be taken together. I rather prefer the work done by the hon. Lady in putting together this collection of amendments, and I urge the Minister to consider them carefully.
 Even if the Minister was correct in saying that amendment No. 191 was otiose because subsection (2)(c) states that ''other information be provided'', it is better that it should appear in the Bill because it would then make clear what power was available to the inspector and what questions he could ask to which he should expect an answer. The Minister may be right about subsection (2)(c), but it is extremely important that the inspector's duties should be transparent and clear to those who are on the receiving end. 
 I do not want to delay the Committee. I think that the amendment is a careful construction. The hon. Lady and those advising her seek to make the clause stronger and clearer. Considerable work has been done on what defences are available for refusing or failing to supply the information to the inspector. I therefore hope that the Minister will take the amendments as a group and give real consideration to whether or not they would improve the clause. That is certainly my view.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Member for Reigate is absolutely right that this series of amendments hangs together. Are we able to take them together?

Derek Conway: Yes. If the hon. Lady is content that we debate all four together, it will facilitate the Committee's progress. Is the Minister content with that?

Des Browne: Yes.

Derek Conway: With amendment No. 191, we shall debate the following amendments: No. 192, page 28, line 1, leave out 'commits' and insert 'is guilty of'.
 No. 273, in page 28, line 2, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'. 
 No. 191, in page 28, line 5, at end insert— 
 '(3A) If a person is charged with an offence under subsection (3) in respect of a requirement to produce a document under subsection (3), it is a defence to prove— 
 (a) that the document was not in his possession or under his control; and 
 (b) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement. 
 (3B) If a person is charged with an offence under subsection (3) in respect of a requirement— 
 (a) to provide information, 
 (b) to provide an explanation of a document, or 
 (c) to state where a document is to be found, 
 it is a defence for him to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement.'.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Committee's co-operation.
 Amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment. Subsection (3) refers to a person who commits an offence, while subsection (4) refers to 
 ''A person guilty of an offence''. 
Is there intended to be any difference between the terminology? I suspect not. 
 The more important amendments that I tabled relate to the offences. When I first read the clause, I was struck by the fact that insufficient weight had been given to the seriousness of the offence of obstructing the inspector in the process of inspecting any of the organisations listed in clause 46(1). 
 It occurs to me that I have grouped all the amendments together now—I have begun to discuss amendment No. 195. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.—[Laughter.]

Derek Conway: Order. To help the hon. Lady, to whom we are being a little unfair in driving her so forcefully, I think we should deal with amendments Nos. 191 to 194 first before we discuss amendment No. 195, with which she may like to debate amendments Nos. 196 and 197. I hope that helps her—it certainly helps me.

Lady Hermon: Amendment No. 195 shows the seriousness with which I view obstruction of the inspector in the course of his duties.
 The clause does not deal with intentionally and wilfully destroying or hiding documents when the chief inspector is conducting an inspection. I am especially concerned about the level of punishment that will be meted out to a person guilty of an offence under subsection (3). The Bill is drafted so that a person 
''guilty of an offence under subsection (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'' 
I do not pretend to be a criminal lawyer, but I think that the level of fine is equivalent to that meted out to someone convicted on a charge of drunk and disorderly behaviour. Intentionally or recklessly obstructing the inspector in the course of an inspection merits a much more severe punishment.

Andrew Turner: It may help the hon. Lady to know that the Education Bill, which received its Third Reading last night, makes it an offence wilfully to obstruct Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools. A person guilty of that offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4.

Derek Conway: Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to that intervention, which was in order, may I point out that we should stick to the first group of amendments rather than wander into a discussion of subsection (4), as we are in danger of doing? We shall come to that under the next group of amendments. Rather than taking a great raft of amendments together so that no one knows where we are, we should confine ourselves to amendments Nos. 191 to 194, if the hon. Lady is happy with that. We shall discuss the standard scale next.

Lembit Öpik: Am I right to assume that the points that the hon. Lady has just made primarily refer to amendment No. 194, which seeks to stiffen the offences or penalties for obstructing an inspection? Did her point not relate to that amendment, rather than to the group that comes after it?

Lady Hermon: I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) had the best of intentions in supporting amendments Nos. 194 and 273, but I do not intend to press those amendments. I shall explain why. I tabled the long amendment No. 194 because I wanted to toughen up the offence, or to tease out an explanation of what was meant by ''reasonable excuse.'' However, last night, when I examined that carefully constructed amendment—I am being sarcastic—I noticed that the final line states that
''it is a defence for him to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement.'' 
That is tautologous, so I do not want to speak to amendments Nos. 194 and 273. I have spoken to the other amendments in this little bunch. We need to consider the seriousness of intentionally obstructing the inspector during an inspection.

Lembit Öpik: In attempting to assist the hon. Lady, I managed to harm myself, and I apologise for talking about a later amendment.
 I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the intention behind amendment No. 194, although it seems that the hon. Lady does not intend to press it to a vote. She made a very persuasive point, however, when she said that it would make explicit something that the Bill leaves to the courts to determine. Perhaps the Minister could consider that issue before Report stage.

Des Browne: I have sought in my contributions to this short debate to deal with amendment No. 191, so I shall not return to it.
 If I understood the comments that the hon. Member for North Down made in support of amendment No. 192, she seeks to highlight the distinction between subsection (4), which uses the word ''guilty'', and 
 subsection (3), which uses the phrase ''commits an offence''. She will, however, not be surprised to learn that we made that distinction deliberately. 
 A person can be sentenced only when he has been found guilty, which is why subsection (4), which deals with sentences, uses the word ''guilty''. Subsection (3), however, describes the constituent elements of an offence, and it will be for the court to determine whether a person is guilty. That is why the phrase ''commits an offence'' is used. I have read numerous statutes in my life, but I have never before picked up on the fact—perhaps it was obvious—that they commonly make such a distinction when describing an offence and the penalty for it. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady. 
 As I understand it, the hon. Lady does not want to press amendment No. 194, but it might be possible to deal with some of her concerns in the context of amendment No. 273. Subsection (3) includes the phrase ''without reasonable excuse'' because it does not deal with an absolute offence. When charged, people can offer the defence that they had an excuse based on reason for not preventing something that would otherwise have constituted an offence. The offence set out in the clause is not absolute, unlike some road traffic offences. One is guilty of such an offence if particular circumstances prevail in relation to the state of a motor vehicle, whether or not one could have prevented them. The onus is, therefore, on the person to prevent such circumstances from arising. 
 The inspector will mostly be seeking the co-operation of civil servants on public bodies, who will have a duty to co-operate. Someone who has an excuse based on reason for being unable to respond to a request for information from the inspector could offer it as a defence. That is why the phrase ''without reasonable excuse'' is included. We do not seek to create an absolute offence or to stipulate that a person is guilty of an offence where information is not passed on, whether or not that is their responsibility.

Andrew Turner: I would like to go back to the analogy that I used in respect of amendment No. 191. One of the authorities covered by the inspector commits an offence by failing to provide a document without reasonable excuse. That document has been taken home by a former employee of the authority. The authority has a reasonable excuse for not producing the document, because it neither has it nor knows where it is. However, I wonder why the inspector should not be able to go and extract it. That seems to be the weakness of clause 48 in general.

Des Browne: I do not accept that that is a weakness. In his earlier contribution, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the clause was designed to allow the inspector to exercise his powers in relation to authorities but not individuals, when it is clear from the provisions that a person commits the offence. There is anticipation that individuals as well as organisations may be required by the inspector to respond. That is why subsection (3) uses such phraseology.
 We may need to return to this matter at some stage, and I would be happy to do so, but at the moment I am not persuaded that there is a problem. I do not have anything further to say about the amendments. We should move on to consider the nature and scale of the penalty, if you will allow that, Mr. Conway.

Derek Conway: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Down to wind up the debate, I should make it clear that, if she were to seek to withdraw amendment No. 191, and the Committee were to agree, that would not prevent her from pressing any of the other amendments in that group to a Division, if she so wished. I expect her to give an indication of her intentions in her concluding remarks.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Conway—

Des Browne: I understood that the hon. Lady had said that she did not intend to move amendment No. 194. That is why I structured my remarks in the way that I did. I did not address the matter in detail.

Derek Conway: The trouble with messing around with groups is that it can confuse everyone. The debate formally concerns amendment No. 191, but the other amendments have been grouped with it, so amendment No. 194 has not, technically, been moved. It would have to be formally moved if it were to be pressed to a Division. As far as the Chair is concerned, it has not been moved as such, even though the debate has centred on it.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Conway. I also thank the Minister.
 I recommend, as bedtime reading, the Competition Act 1998. It is a useful way to get to sleep—at least in my experience. To recap, I do not propose to divide the Committee on the amendments. The Minister kindly said that he may return to the matters. I suspect that that was a commitment to do so. We may have difficulties when we re-read this morning's discussions, but he has adequately addressed the issue for my purposes. However, when we discuss the next group of amendments, I shall want to return to the seriousness of obstructing the inspector in the course of his inspections. Therefore, I am happy not to press amendment No. 191 to a Division and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 28, line 6, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 7 and insert
 '(3)(a) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine'.

Derek Conway: With this we may also take the following amendments: No. 196, in page 28, line 7, at end insert—
 '(4A) A person is guilty of an offence if, having been required to produce a document under subsection (2)—
(a) he intentionally or recklessly destroys or otherwise disposes of it, falsifies it or conceals it, or
(b) he causes or permits its destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment.'.
 No. 197, in page 28, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(4B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) above is liable— 
 (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; 
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.'.

Lady Hermon: I tabled the amendment so that I might ask the Minister why the offence of intentionally obstructing the chief inspector of criminal justice will attract such trivial punishment. Frustrating the chief inspector should be seen as a serious offence, but that is not reflected in the Bill. The penalty under clause 48(4) is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is also the statutory maximum punishment for being found drunk and disorderly.
 We should not trivialise the seriousness of obstructing or frustrating the chief inspector during his inspections. I believe that falsifying, destroying or concealing information, intentionally or recklessly, should attract a serious penalty. That is why amendment No. 197 proposes that the punishment for such offences should include the option of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. I am not suggesting that that term should always be imposed, but that it should be a maximum. 
 I seek some recognition from the Minister that the matter is serious. We should send out the message that co-operation will always be expected when the chief inspector carries out an inspection of any of the organisations listed in clause 46(1).

Crispin Blunt: I rise to support the hon. Member for North Down and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks about amendment No. 195. I am slightly confused by the language used in the amendment because it differs from that used in amendment No. 197. The hon. Lady's amendments refer to a statutory maximum, but would it be better to refer to level 5, and is that the statutory maximum? I would be grateful if the Minister would assist me on that.
 The amendment raises an issue about consistency across the piece, which was illustrated by the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. It seems bizarre that someone who obstructs the investigation of a school inspector should be liable to a level 4 fine, but that someone who obstructs an investigation surrounding the issue of justice should be liable to only a level 3 fine. That appears to be inconsistent, so I should be grateful if the Minister would reflect on the matter and consider whether an amendment should be tabled on Report. In my judgment, a level 5 fine or the statutory maximum, as proposed by the hon. Lady, would be more appropriate.

Lembit Öpik: As the inspection regime depends on a level of deterrence, it seems sensible to toughen up the consequences of trying to cheat the system. Does the Minister feel that that is something for which he could
 find space in the Bill, either now or on Report? The onus is on the Government to explain why they feel that the current penalties are sufficient to achieve the intended deterrent.

Des Browne: From the conduct of the debate, I gather that Committee members understand how the fine structure is applied across offences. When levels of fines were introduced into the system, they were designed to address the issues of proportionality and recording the seriousness of offences—albeit in broad groupings—that the hon. Member for North Down raised. I am interested in her reference to the offence of being drunk and disorderly. In my experience of representing clients who have been charged with it, that offence is a broad church—it is a bit like breach of the peace in that it covers a wide range of behaviour. Being drunk and disorderly cannot be described as a trivial offence per se, although it might be in certain circumstances. The objective of the amendments is germane to the structure of fines, which is designed to narrow down the opportunity for disparity and disproportionality between fines for different offences. It also makes it easier to increase or move fines, so that it is not necessary to amend a whole range of statutory offences in relation to penalties; that can be done by reference to penalty provisions in relation to standard fines.
 In response to the hon. Member for Reigate, I confirm that the phraseology and shape of the amendments are correct. The statutory maximum is level 5, which is £5,000, but that relates only to a summary conviction. There is no statutory maximum in relation to convictions and indictments, so the wording is entirely correct and reflects the penalties available. 
 The onus is, of course, on the Government to show the argument in relation to proportionality. I pray in aid the fact that the choice of the level of penalty and the decision not to include imprisonment were informed by the penalty that was passed by Parliament in 1998 in relation to a directly analogous set of circumstances, namely obstruction of an inspector of a juvenile justice centre or attendance centre in Northern Ireland. We adopted those penalties in the Bill knowing that they had been considered appropriate in that situation. 
 I take on board what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said. As he knows, the Education Bill is not yet law. I also accept the point of the hon. Member for Reigate. I am not pretending that I was aware of it, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention. However, the Bill is not yet law. We may need to revisit these matters, but I do not know whether Parliament will retain that penalty in the measure. I prefer to look for support in fixing penalties at a certain level by referring to existing legislation.

Lembit Öpik: As the Minister has said in other debates, we are dealing with an environment in Northern Ireland in which there is particular incentive for some organisations to try to pervert the law. In the past, exceptions have been made for the Province in that regard. Does the Minister not feel that this is one
 of the occasions on which we might wish to introduce a tougher package of penalties because of the particular situation in Northern Ireland?

Des Browne: I accept the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, but not what he said. We are dealing with public agencies and, by and large, with civil servants. I have answered the proportionality question. In doing so, I was informed by a decision, which is no more than three years old, of this Parliament on the level at which such fines should be fixed.
 Let me deal now with amendments Nos. 196 and 197. Amendment No. 196 is designed to set out a particular kind of offence. The hon. Member for North Down is concerned that the Bill does not already cover certain behaviour. I can reassure her that subsection (3) already covers it. If a person were to do the sort of things that the hon. Lady envisages, that would constitute a clear, intentional obstruction. If it could be proved, it would lead to that person being convicted of an offence. I do not think that the hon. Lady intended to do more than elicit the reassurance that that sort of behaviour was already covered. 
 I have already dealt with the issue of the penalty raised by amendment No. 197.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Just as he is not an expert on the Competition Act 1998, I was not reading the Education Bill last night before I went to bed. However, I would like to refer back to existing education legislation. The Education Bill has just received its Third Reading. The paragraph to which I referred deals with the obstruction of an inspector conducting an inspection of an independent school. Existing legislation already makes it an offence to obstruct an inspector while he is conducting an inspection of a maintained school, and I would be surprised if the fine for that offence was not equivalent to that for the offence that has yet to become law.
 I wonder if the Minister might consider that and, more particularly, whether this level is appropriate for this purpose, bearing in mind the distinction—again, I do not speak from a great deal of knowledge—between a juvenile justice centre, which is perhaps equivalent to a school, and bodies such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, which is more equivalent to a local education authority, though it is larger and considerably more important in the lives of the people of the Province. 
 For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will find time between now and Report stage to re-examine the level of the fines. There is a good case for doing so.

Des Browne: I am anxious not to expand the debate or lengthen it unnecessarily, but I do not want to be seen as misleading the Committee or leaving it with a wrong impression. The debate is interesting and raises questions about how one supervises the proportionality of penalties to offences. All of us could, no doubt, talk at length on the matter. The Government have a duty to keep such matters under
 review. I will feed this debate into that process, particularly the observations of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about the apparent disparity between inspection in education and the Bill's provisions on inspection in the area of criminal justice.
 My argument is that recent decisions by Parliament on Northern Ireland are not directly analogous, because if they were we would not need this inspectorate. In analogous circumstances, however, there is a strong argument for proportionality in the Bill. The wider issue must be dealt with in a wider context. I am not giving an undertaking to the Committee that I shall bring the issue back on Report, but there is nothing to stop other Committee members raising it.

Lady Hermon: I find it disquieting, to put it mildly, that the Minister has read my mind. I was going to ask him whether the phrase, ''intentionally obstructs a person'' in clause 48(3)(b) includes the falsification, destruction or concealment of documents. He pre-empted that by explaining that ''intentionally obstructs'' covers those issues. I am happy with his explanation, which was welcome.
 The other issues that concern me are the level of fines and the seriousness of obstructing the chief inspector in the course of an inspection. The Minister gave a helpful and comprehensive explanation of the background to the clause. There is a previous example of an inspection of a juvenile justice centre in Northern Ireland, and I must add it to my reading list.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have listened with great interest to the points made by her, the Minister and other members of the Committee. The point that she makes is correct in that these are serious offences that should be dealt with. I am not competent to debate the legal issues, but as a lay person I have a feeling that obstruction in this area is serious, and that it should be treated seriously. I ask the Minister take the matter seriously, as he is doing.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman is correct: we all take the view that it is a serious matter to obstruct a chief inspector carrying out an inspection of any of those listed organisations. However, I must say with knowledge of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that there is a great emphasis on the word ''proportionality'', and the punishment must be proportionate to the offence. I would not want us to rush into a series of cases in which this legislation was struck down on the grounds that it is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence. I appreciate his intervention, but the proportionality principle is fundamental, and it is recognised in the Bill. The discussion has been useful, and we have extracted a lot of background information from the Minister, which is always helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: I should like to pursue the question of whom the inspector is not allowed to inspect. The Minister explained that the Bill in no way restricts the inspector's sphere of operations. I am uneasy with his explanation because, although the Bill does not restrict the inspector's sphere of operations, I wonder how the courts would interpret its provisions if Her Majesty's Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland knocked on my door and asked questions about the inspection of the Prison Service. I would be entitled to say that I was not prepared to have him in my house, or answer his questions, and that should be an end to the matter. That is an obvious distinction. Some people associated with the Prison Service in Northern Ireland would feel the same.
 Inspectors may feel that they have knowledge pertinent to their inspections, despite the fact that they are no longer, or never were, employed by the Prison Service. For very good reasons, the widow of a former member of the Prison Service may resist being questioned about the activities of her husband in that service, and the way it was being run. In those circumstances, a court would find it hard to say that that individual was automatically subject to the inspector's powers. The inspector may have to go to court to demonstrate that he has those powers. The individual may want to go to court to demonstrate the opposite. 
 The powers are subject to somebody, who would probably work for the institutions described in clause 46 (1)(a) to (j). If one used to be employed by the compensation agency, the inspector would have to prove that he had a good reason for asking questions and demanding papers. In supplying that reason, he may reveal elements of his line of inspection. I am expressing unease; I want the Minister to reflect on that and consider whether it is appropriate to give an inspector broad powers without specifying their extent. The inspector should have those powers. It is right that he could ask a former serving member of one of the institutions what happened to a particular document, for example. However, it would be helpful if that were clearer.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for allowing us to return to that point, which I thought we would return to in the context of clause stand part. His contributions have been helpful because they have outlined potential circumstances. Every time he gets to his feet, he produces another set of circumstances, as he imagines the possibilities. He demonstrates the futility of trying to anticipate every set of circumstances. The Bill is a substantial document. It would be twice the size if we were to cover every potential circumstance relating to inspections.
 The draftsmen, and the Government, intend to provide inspectors with the relevant powers, knowing that they will be subject to the sort of arguments that the hon. Gentleman imagines will take place in extremis on doorsteps or in courts. It is for the courts to interpret the extent of the inspector's powers and functions. That will depend largely on circumstance. It is clear from the context that the premises that are referred to are intended to, and probably will, be 
 restricted to premises of those in the list of organisations subject to inspection. I do not anticipate that ''premises'' will be interpreted more widely than that, but I can figure a set of circumstances in which premises are no longer occupied by such an organisation, but a store of files has been left there. Common sense tells us that the inspector would not be unreasonable in arguing that his powers extended to those remaining files—in a situation similar to the earlier analogy of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight . It is right to have such flexibility, because we cannot anticipate every circumstance. 
 Subsection (3), which refers to persons who can commit an offence, was clearly drafted with employees in mind. I will refer to the analogy that the hon. Gentleman used of ex-employees taking documents home. The powers relating to documents are intended to be used for documents and the information therein. We home could get into an interesting argument about whose property the documents are if they are taken by an employee who becomes an ex-employee; he or she may forget to return a briefcase of documents to the agency, or perhaps intended to hold on to it because it contained information that they did want to see the light of day. 
 The powers clearly relate to the documents and, although I do not ever expect to be instructed by the inspector to argue this, I can easily construct the framework of an argument for the court, and for the doorstep, that says that a power in the Act allows the inspector, or his agent, to have access to documents. Unless criminality or malpractice is being covered up, I do not imagine that anyone will have to go to court. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the framework and the context of the powers are restrictive enough not to have someone going around Northern Ireland with powers over any person. The courts will be sufficiently informed that, to make the appropriate decisions at the margins, there may need to be arguments about how far the powers extend.

Andrew Turner: I understand that my comments may appear to be fanciful flights of my imagination, but the problem is that situations already arise in the case of, say, the local government ombudsman in England. He is constantly frustrated in the investigations he attempts by the fact that staff have left the local authority and refuse to appear. If the situation is something as insubstantial as that in the Isle of Wight, it is likely to be far more substantial in an allegation brought or an inspection undertaken in Northern Ireland.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is unduly sensitive. His were not flights of fancy, but interesting issues and I was congratulating him on his ability to use his imagination in debate to figure circumstances that could have basis in reality. I understand his analogy, but we cannot cover every eventuality in the Bill. If he knows of a specific eventuality that would not be covered except by statutory provision, I shall be happen to debate it in the context of an amendment. Statute law does not seek to cover every eventuality,
 but to create a framework in which a statutory authority works, and powers to allow that authority to carry out inspections to the necessary extent. That is what the clause seeks to do.

Andrew Turner: I appreciate the Minister's words, and accept the explanation that, in his view, there is sufficient power.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Law Commission

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in page 28, line 35, after 'Court', insert
'either in Northern Ireland, England and Wales or Scotland.'.
 The law in Northern Ireland is fragmented with old Acts from the time of Stormont, Orders in Council from the awful time of direct rule, and now Acts of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. I am delighted that we are to have a law commission and I welcome that. 
 However, when the criminal justice review team made a comparative analysis of law commissions in other jurisdictions, including the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, and elsewhere, it came to the interesting conclusion in paragraph 14.55 that
''From experience of law reform bodies and other jurisdictions, it is clear that the involvement of at least one person engaged full time on law reform quickly enhances the productivity and credibility of the organisation. However, in the context of a jurisdiction the size of Northern Ireland, we believe that it would be sensible to start with an entirely part-time membership.'' 
Despite that conclusion by the review team, the Bill does not suggest that we are starting with an entirely part-time membership. On the contrary, under clause 50 the Law Commission will have five members and my understanding is that they will be full-time members. 
 The Law Commission for the Republic of Ireland, which is a larger jurisdiction, has five full-time members. The Law Commission for England and Wales, which is a much larger jurisdiction, has only five members. It is clear from clause 50(3) that the chairman of the Northern Ireland Law Commission must be a High Court judge and I remind hon. Members that in Northern Ireland we have only seven judges in the High Court.

Des Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Derek Conway: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and the hon. Lady. I am required now to adjourn the Committee, but the hon. Lady will have the Floor when we return this afternoon and the Minister may then intervene.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.